-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Just throw it into a funding bill....
- Thread starter Random_71
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Really? Not sure?? Have you read what’s in the “NICS Denial Notification Act?
The Federal government is actively working, literally day and night, to disarm as many of us as possible. And our Senator Todd Young voted for it.
Last edited:
Yes i've read most of it, with working with what we have right " Now " who besides the Feds goes after 4473 liars and other nefarious people?
And they arnt very good at it themselves.
I didn't just mean this next election, but rather anytime. I just meant I don't want to give the Senate to the Dems *again*.
He's saying, "This is pretty simple for me. "What does the 2nd (Amendment) say?" There's where I'm at."
but yes, punctuation helps.
You mean the 20,000-plus infringements forbidden by the 2A? I agree: abolish them. As has been said so many times, "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I say that as a man who does not drink, does not smoke, and wishes that neither had been discovered, but at the same time, understands that people make their own choices, and as long as those choices don't impact others, they are no one else's business. In short, I don't have to like that they exist, but I'm not in favor of regulating the inanimate objects.
Don't give them any ideas. With Dems in charge of both houses and the White House, they can drum up a statute and code for a new law pretty quickly.... Esp. with squish "Republicans" (RINOs, that is) going along with the plan.
The 4473 is yet another infringement. Put it this way: A gun is a tool. If I can walk in to Lowe's and buy a hammer and not have ti file federal paperwork and submit like a criminal to having my background investigated, especially by well-funded forces that don't like that I have rights, then I should not have to submit to any of that to walk in to Lowe's or for that matter, Meijer, to buy a gun. What's that? Meijer doesn't sell guns because they're not a FFL dealer? The point is that there should not be an FFL system to define a seller that way!
Prior to 1968, a person of any age and any background could walk into a hardware store, put cash on the counter, and walk out with gun and ammo, possibly even with the ammo in the new gun just purchased.
Was there more crime when that was the law, or more under the FFL system?
Heinlein said it best: An armed society is a polite society.
Freedom is not safe. Freedom has risks. But we can't go around denying it to others to make ourselves feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel safer. All we can really do is fulfill their wishes when they decide to commit suicide by stupidity. (that is, attacking an innocent)
Blessings,
Bill
I just wrote this to Senator Young. He is really starting to chap my a**...
"Senator Young,
You voted for the MARCH 8, 2022 RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 117–35 TEXT OF THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2471 legislation. Did you read it? All 2,700 plus pages? If not, how did you know the legislation proposed was within the scope and confines of the Constitution you took an oath to uphold?
Did you read the TITLE XI—LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOLS TO ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY SEC. 1101. NICS DENIAL NOTIFICATION ACT OF 2022 section? Did you read this section and have any recognition of the violation it represents to the Second and 14th Amendments?
The number of false positives reported by the NICS system is disgusting, especially in light of the subject legislation.
You sir, have demonstrated that you do not deserve my vote.
I should not feel compelled to write you on this topic however; in light of the push of the Communists (AKA Democrats) I feel I have no choice."
We seem to forget this is what we have NOW.
Not what we want it to be. What we want flew out the window in 68 and more so with the Brady.
So with what i'm reading here just forget what laws we have NOW and not enforce them?
Dont prosecute straw, drug addicts, drunks, felons that fill out 4473's trying to buy a firearm.
Not what we want it to be. What we want flew out the window in 68 and more so with the Brady.
So with what i'm reading here just forget what laws we have NOW and not enforce them?
Dont prosecute straw, drug addicts, drunks, felons that fill out 4473's trying to buy a firearm.
I understand freedom my friend, quite well thank you.
And I will say it again, thats not what we have now.
If someone wants to be addicted to drugs or alcohol, they will be. If they want off of them, they will get off of them. I don’t see those alone as reasons to prosecute someone.
A *former* felon going to buy a gun… again, in and of itself, I don’t care. Maybe that guy still knows people who continue to commit felonious acts, and wants to defend himself and his family against them. I say prosecute acts where someone has caused actual harm or attempted to do so.
I get that you’re addressing the laws as we have them now. Here’s the thing though, as I see it. Our laws, by and large, are supposed to punish those who are doing harm. If I choose to burn down my own house, I may do so. The consequence is that I then have no home, and I can’t file insurance on the home, as that’s a fraud, an actual harm.
Someone going to buy a gun, in and of itself, what harm has he done? Why should he be prosecuted? Has he not “paid his debt to society”, to use that old phrase? Is he to be punished forever for his act when he was younger?
Take, for example, the 18 yr old caught drinking, who then, at 21, knows he cannot drive, gets in his back seat to “sleep it off” and gets arrested for OWI, when he was trying to do the right thing… that’s two alcohol charges in 3 yrs, a felony. Are we really safer that that guy is kept helpless by the law?
Thats a lot of cherry picking, do we not care about the felon thats on probation or parole? Do we not care about the endless straw purchases done in the name of a partner that is still on probation or parole?
Nothing with the multiple time domestic violence offender?
How about those the court has found mentality deficient.
And those here illegally or on non immigration visa?
Those who earned a dishonorable discharge?
It’s all about disarming us, one person at a time.
For me, it’s a moral issue similar to the death penalty. One person receiving the death penalty unjustly is too many. One person losing his rights unjustly is too many.
I would tend to believe we do a better job with those found guilty in todays dna, forensic world now than 20+ years ago. I would hope so anyway.
Is there a better system than we have here?
Is there a better system? Probably not. Can our system be better though, that's the question, IMHO.
To answer you, no, I really don't care about the felon on probation or parole (would be parole, in this situation, I think, but not splitting hairs... I get what you mean.) Which is to say, I don't care about them as a group, insofar as gun purchases... If they want them for criminal activity, they're going to get them, whether we try to stop them or not. That's why I set up the case example of the former felon gone straight. This guy doesn't want to commit a crime, he just wants to not be a victim of one. I can't see disarming that guy forever due to a past mistake.
I don't care about straw purchases, and here's why: A bunch of years ago, a guy in West Lafayette killed a couple of girls with a hammer. That's all I remember about that case, but let's say that that guy somehow is let out on parole. Is there any law that says he can't walk into a store and buy more hammers? No, but he sure can't buy a gun- not that that matters, it's not his weapon of choice.
We play at reducing crime by attempting to control *things*. but the things aren't the cause nor even a factor in the crime. The hammer guy might just as well have grabbed a large wrench. Or a screwdriver. Or a rock.
The multiple time DV offender? Hey, now we're getting somewhere! We're talking about the offender here. Control the criminal, not the tool he or she uses! That person needs to be in a cage. In there, he or she won't be abusing a partner.
The mentally deficient? Supervise them. But that avoids a bigger issue: who has called them "mentally deficient"? Years ago, my late wife was a patient seeing a particular psychiatrist. I happened to mention a LTCH at one point and the shrink made clear that if she discovered any of her patients had licenses to carry, she would contact the state to revoke them. This was her blanket policy: She didn't like guns, and this was a group she had power over and could prevent from having them..... legally, at least. In my view, this is an abuse of power and of authority, but this is a person who would be viewed as the authority figure in the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".
Those here illegally? Deport them. I don't care what guns they have if they're not here.
Dishonorable discharge? Why? Was it because they committed a crime, or because they refused to accept a so-called "vaccination" that they were told they had to get? (In fairness, I don't know that those discharged for that reason got dishonorably discharged, but it speaks to the larger point.
Now I'll give you one. What about someone who is listed as a "sex offender" on the registry for that? Is the fact that they're listed there a reason to deny them the lawful ability to possess a firearm? I don't want to "gotcha" you, so I'll explain my question before you give me your reply: When INGO started, one of our first moderators was Scutter01. Scutter often mentioned the example that a person on that list could be there because he was a child molester or rapist, or could be there because he went out behind a bar and someone happened to see his penis when he was peeing on the wall. I fully agree that the former two examples should not be armed; as it happens, I think they should either be locked up or should be dead.... but that's because of the crime they committed, not because of their placement on a specific list.... But exposing oneself is seen as a sex crime, so some have been listed there on that basis.
So for me, most of the "prohibited groups"... are just like racial prejudice: Judging an entire group based on the behavior of their worst examples.
I can't agree that that's right. I get that we are a nation of laws, and not of men. I'm not sure how to make a law that addresses those differences of situations, though, other than by not having the specific law that infringes. Should a rapist be jailed? Sure. Should a criminal (very broad term) be able to lawfully be armed? Unanswerable as asked.
Blessings,
Bill
